Death to Tyrants! (37 page)

14
Smyth ([1920] 1956: §1690).

15
The first definition for
στάσις
in
LSJ
is “placing, setting; erection of a statue.” For epigraphic examples of the use of
στάσις
in this sense, see Gauthier (1982: 218n15). Examples of Erythraian decrees containing the phrase
εἰκόνα στῆσαι
:
RO
8 (lines 14–15),
RO
56 (lines 11–12),
I. Erythrai
28 (lines 52–53); also, the phrase
τὸν δεῖνα ὁ δῆμος ἔστησεν
occurs on the inscription for two statue bases:
I. Erythrai
25 and 26.

16
Ober (2005c: 228–30). The widespread equation between oligarchy and tyranny by non-Athenians is clear. See, for example, Rhodes in 395 (
Hell
.
Oxy
. 10, 2 = column xi, 12–28), Eretria in 341 (their tyrant-killing law, lines 20–21), Ilion circa 280 (their tyrant-killing law, lines 53–54).

17
See
RO
17 for a clear depiction of a zero-sum-game stasis situation in Erythrai (387/6 BCE). On stasis, see Gehrke (1985) and Hansen and Nielsen (2004: 124–29).

18
The Erythraians did make an attempt at reconciliation and amnesty in circa 330 (
I. Erythrai
10), but, per the historical argument offered below, that amnesty was over thirty years before the oligarchs manipulated the statue of Philites.

19
Gauthier (1982: 219–21).

20
Inscribed statue bases for athletes in Erythrai:
I. Erythrai
87 (3rd or 2nd BCE), 88 (190/180).
I. Erythrai
89 (early imperial) records an honorary decree for an athlete.

21
The population of Erythrai almost certainly fluctuated and can be only crudely estimated. But, in the late fourth century, Erythrai's city walls enclosed 135 hectares (see note 37 on the walls). Also, Rubinstein (2004: 1073) designates Erythrai as size “5” (= 500 km
²
or greater). With that information, one might apply Hansen's “shotgun method” (2006a) to determine the approximate population of Erythrai in the later fourth century. Doing so produces a total population—in the late fourth century—of 30,375 persons: (1) 67.5 hectares of inhabited intramural space [i.e., one-half of the 135 total hectares enclosed by the city walls]; (2) 150 people lived in each hectare of inhabited intramural space; (3) two-thirds of the total population of size “5” poleis lived outside the city walls. Thus 67.5 × 150 × 3 = 30,375. This very well might be underestimating the population: the territory of Erythrai contained five dependent poleis (Rubinstein [2003: 1074]).

22
It would help my argument if Welles's suggestion (
RC
p. 83) that Lysimachos had a garrison in the city were true. (It will be argued below that the oligarchs removed the sword from the statue of Philites after the battle of Ipsos.) Welles based his conclusion on Meyer's assertion (1925: 35–36) that Lysimachos had a royal mint in Erythrai. But more recent works on Lysimachos's mints (Thompson [1968]; Mørkholm [1991]) do not include Erythrai as a location for a royal mint. Erythrai did issue coins after the battle of Ipsos: Mørkholm (1991: 92). But they were not royal coins. It might be worth noting, however, that Lysimachos did have royal mints at Teos (40 miles from Erythrai by land) and Smyrna (60 miles away, but easily accessible by sea). If those cities were garrisoned, soldiers stationed there easily could have provided backup for the Erythraian oligarchs.

23
Recall Plato's observation (
Leges
738 D–E) noted in
chapter 1
, note 63: polis-sponsored festivals are an excellent occasion for people to get to know each other.

24
According to Plutarch (
Arat
. 45.3), statues of tyrants and their opponents played an important role in the politics of late-third-century Argos. Statues of its former tyrants had been cast down and statues of the anti-tyranny liberators of the Akrokorinth subsequently (i.e., post-243) erected. But later, Antigonos Doson re-erected the statues of Argos's former tyrants and cast down the statues (except that of Aratos) of the liberators of the Akrokorinth.

25
Gauthier (1982: 215n4), however, suggests that all attempts to date the events (beyond placing them in the third century) are futile.

26
This position is followed by (inter alios) Badian (1966: 62–63n19) and Ellis (1976: 222).

27
Lund (1992: 127) agrees with this general context. For the tyrant (named Hiero) at Priene from 300 to 297, see
I. Priene
37, lines 66ff., 109ff.; Paus. 7.2.10;
Syll
.
³
363
; I. Priene
11 and 12 (this last inscription records honors for a certain Evander of Larissa and is almost certainly associated with Hiero's fall).

28
Engelmann and Merkelbach thus accepted Wilhelm's dating (1915: 32) of the first decades of the third century.

29
Virtually every aspect of this important decree is problematic due, in large part, to the fact that the stone is lost and scholars are completely beholden to Boeckh's publication (
CIG
73b [p. 891]) that presented a copy of a drawing of the stone's text made by Fauvel (which is also lost). For a detailed study of the decree and its historical context, see Highby (1936). Rhodes (2008: 501)—who now rejects the old three-barred sigma orthodoxy—dates the Erythrai Decree to the late 450s. Lewis, in
IG
I
³
14, dates it to circa 453–452. Mattingly (1996: 367n23) also dates it to circa 453–452.

30
This is the conclusion of
ML
40. It is followed by
IG
I
³
(15 a, d), Mattingly (1996: 397), Rhodes (2008: 501). It is tempting to connect the promulgation of
I. Erythrai
1 and 2 to these mid-fifth-century difficulties. The former sets strict term limits for secretaries. The latter outlaws certain (political, presumably) acts committed by magistrates (it appears), establishes procedures for trying transgressors, and articulates penalties for individuals who do not appear when summoned by the
prytaneis
.

31
For the electrum stater, see the introduction to this chapter with note 5.

32
The statue in Erythrai:
RO
8. The Athenians eventually erected statues of both Konon and his son Timotheos in both the agora and the acropolis. See
Tod
128 for a short discussion and presentation of the evidence (Paus. 1.3.1; Isok. 9.57; Aischin 3.243; Dem. 20.70; Nep.
Timoth.
2.3).

33
In this interpretation, the erection of the statue of Philites would be more or less contemporary to the building of the temple of Aphrodite Pandemos. The inscription (
IEryth
McCabe 32.5) referring to the building of the temple is dated V/IVb. A reasonable and compelling context would be shortly after the battle of Knidos: the temple would commemorate the re-foundation of Erythrai's democracy. Note that the construction of that temple was for “the protection of the
dēmos
”: lines 4–5.

34
Heisserer's theory is apparently accepted by Rhodes and Lewis (1997: 368). Neither Gauthier (1982: 215n4) nor Lund (1992: 127, 239n73) accepts it.

35
In spring 332 Chios fell (Arr.
Anab.
3.2.3)—see Bosworth (1980: ad loc.); it is quite likely, as suggested in the commentary on
I. Erythrai
21, that Erythrai fell shortly before that.

36
For examples of this dynamic, see the section titled “Historical Context” in
chapter 4
. It would be nice if
I. Erythrai
51 dated to this time: it contains fragments of a loyalty oath.

37
Epigraphic evidence for wall building:
I. Erythrai
22, 23. The walls were in place by 315 when Seleukos failed to take the city (Diod. Sic. 19.60.4). Prepelaos—Lysimachos's general—also failed to take the city in 302 (Diod. Sic. 20.107.5). The walls were nearly three miles long (Magie [1950: 79])—protecting the city on the landward side—and enclosed 135 hectares (Rubinstein [2004: 1075]). It is quite possible that the building of this wall followed immediately the destruction of the fortification on the acropolis referred to in
I. Erythrai
21.

38
The construction of a theater in the later years of the fourth century (C4l) is noted by Rubinstein (2004: 1075), citing (the not terribly helpful)
TGR
iii. 451. Ömer Özyiğit (2003: 118) notes that the theater in Phokaia (discovered in 1991) is the oldest theater in Anatolia—built 340–330. He notes that that theater is very much like the theater in Erythrai, which he dates to the last quarter of the fourth century. The earliest epigraphic reference to Erythrai's theater is
I. Erythrai
24, line 32 (277/5). It might be worth pointing out that the Erythraians appear to have begun announcing honors “in the Dionysia” in the later fourth century:
I. Erythrai
21, lines 13–14 (334–332);
I. Erythrai
13, line 5 (fourth/third century); restored in
I. Erythrai
24, line 31 (277/275);
I. Erythrai
27, lines 21–22 (ca. 274) orders “the [presidents of the Dionys]ia” to make sure honors are announced;
I. Erythrai
35, line 13 (mid-third century) has “announce the crown in the Dionysia and Seleukeia.” In contrast, the earliest honorary decrees from Erythrai do not mention the festival of Dionysos:
RO
8 (394);
RO
56 (mid-350s, if not before the Social War);
HD
28 B (mid-350s, if not before the Social War). It is thus quite likely that, in the wake of Alexander's conquest, the Erythraians built a theater of Dionysos.

39
I. Erythrai
151 is a list of public roads. It likely should be dated post-340 since it uses
εἰς
, not
ἐς
. It easily could be post–Alexander's conquest. Line 1 might refer to water reservoirs, as suggested by Rubinstein (2004: 1075).

40
The dynamic here presented purposely echoes Arrian's account (
Anab.
1.17.11) of Alexander's arrival near Ephesos in 334: “The Ephesian
dēmos
, relieved from fear of the oligarchs (
oligoi
), rushed to kill those who had been for calling in Memnon, those who had plundered the temple of Artemis, and those who threw down the statue of Philip in the temple and dug up the tomb of Heropythes, the liberator of the city, in the marketplace.”

41
See Magie (1950: 90–93, 917–24nn4–18) for the complexity in Ionia after the battle of Ipsos.

42
IEryth
McCabe numbers are not in brackets, while
I. Erythrai
numbers are in brackets: 35 [10], 17 [21], 39/40 [22], 42 [23], 264 [151]; these perhaps should be included too: 59 [206], 24 [13], 22 [34], 27 [11].

43
IEryth
McCabe numbers are not in brackets, while
I. Erythrai
numbers are in brackets: 11 [30], 12 [27], 18 [28], 19 [not in
I. Erythrai
], 21 [24], 23 [29], 37 [31], 114 [25], [119] (not in
IEryth
McCabe). And, according to my arguments articulated below, 34 [503 = the Philites stele] should be dated to the period too.

44
There are thirty-five inscriptions dated (or potentially so) to the third century in
IEryth
Mc-Cabe and
I. Erythrai
; the numbers in brackets refer to the inscription's number in
I. Erythrai
: 11 [30], 12 [27], 13 [114], 18 [28], 19 [not in
I.
Erythrai
], 21 [24], 22 [34], 23 [29], 24 [13], 34 [503], 37 [31], 50 [160], 60 [201], 67 [215], 73 [33], 77 [32], 83 [212], 95 [26], 114 [25], 117 [87], 119 [53], 134 [234], 124 [54], 143 [210a], 154 [302], 172 [353], 175 [355], 187 [365], 260 [55], 268 [192], 270 [191]; four inscriptions contained in
I. Erythrai
are not found in
IEryth
McCabe: [35], [36], [119], [431] (this last might not be Erythraian). None of them is securely dated to the years 301–281. Eleven of those thirty-five inscriptions do
not
record public documents: 134 [234], 124 [54], 143 [210a], 154 [302], 172 [353], 175 [355], 187 [365], 260 [55], 270 [191], 83 [212], 67 [215]. That leaves twenty-four (out of the original thirty-five) inscriptions that are potentially dispositive. Sixteen of those twenty-four inscriptions are dated post-281: 11 [30], 12 [27], 13 [114], 18 [28], 19 [not in
I. Erythrai
], 21 [24], 23 [29], 34 [503], 37 [31], 50 [160], 114 [25], 117 [87], [35], [36], [431], [119]. That leaves eight public inscriptions that
possibly
date to the first two decades of the third century: 22 [34], 24 [13], 60 [201], 73 [33], 77 [32], 95 [26], 119 [53], 268 [192]. Three of those inscriptions might actually date to the fourth century: 22 [34] = IVe/IIIb; 24 [13] = IV/III; 268 [192] =IV/III. Three of the remaining five are simply dated to the third century generally, with there being no reason to date them to the first two decades of that century: 73 [33], 95 [26], 119 [53]. One of the remaining two, 77 [32], is dated IIIb (
IEryth
McCabe) or similarly “erstes Drittel des 3. Jahrh. v. Chr.” (
I. Erythrai
). It almost certainly is to be dated to the 270s: it records a dedication of the city's generals to Dēmos, and there are two extant decrees of the
dēmos
, dated to the 270s, that honor the city's generals for their work defending the city against the Celts—see the section titled “Repairing the Statue circa 281.” That leaves one inscription: 60 [201], a list of priesthoods sold. But it is dated 300–260.

45
On democratic Athens and epigraphic production, see Hedrick (1999). The late fourth century is particularly striking. Habicht (1997: 71) notes that there is only one significant extant inscribed assembly decree dating to the period of Demetrios of Phaleron's rule (317–307), while there are over one hundred extant inscribed assembly decrees that date to the period 307–301, when Athens was democratic and protected by Demetrios Poliorketes.